The Great Ether Debate

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: The Great Ether Debate

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by GaryN » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:07 am

Thanks crawler, I thought I had seen the name before on TB but when I searched I got nothing. Even now I get only 2 results with
Carl Frederick Krafft site:http://thunderbolts.info
That was using Google search.

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by crawler » Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:22 am

GaryN wrote: Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:20 am Ether and matter, by Carl Frederick Krafft.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... =1up&seq=1
I found 12 references to Krafft in this forum, & another 3 in the old forum.
He has about 10 books.

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by GaryN » Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:20 am

Ether and matter, by Carl Frederick Krafft.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... =1up&seq=1

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by EtherQuestions » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:42 am

This is an ETHER DEBATE/DISCUSSION THREAD, it is not focused on the relativity debate (there is another thread for that by Zyxzen https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/php ... &start=105)

It should be focused on arguments for and against the Ether model itself.

For example "a light wave model cannot explain xyz, or evidence xyz"
"an Ether has to be incompressible because xyz"
"xyz evidence shows an Ether model cannot explain this effect",
"an Ether model can explain this observation but its model would have to be changed"
"light wave vs light (wave)particle debates/evidences".

NOT "An Ether is impossible because Special/General Relativity are an undisputed fact (paste in the usual papers hailing evidences for SR/GR)"

Not posting arguments about people's intelligence or papers about General Relativity evidence (there is a thin line where this can be contributing though if the effects cannot ever be physically explained by ANY Ether model, but this should be the argument.).

Not
posting HUGE quoted replies that clog up the board and make it a mess. Be concise, or delete the first quote.

Not posting insults or condescending personal replies. Or sliding the discussion entirely into a QM/Relativity Debate, it must stay on the Ether track.

Can any moderator quickly clean up and remove any irrelevant post so we can get back to the original discussion about the Ether? (including any irrelevant posts by myself).
I'll happily do this myself, as this discussion is most important to me.

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by Higgsy » Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:05 pm

Cargo wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 1:36 am I don't think you really care about the forum rules. And that wasn't an insult at all, just a theory which may or may not be proven at some point in the future. Anyway, this is not providing any value to the debate, so we'll just look at each other funny and carry on our own ways.
You have theories, I have facts. Ah well.

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by Cargo » Wed Feb 19, 2020 1:36 am

I don't think you really care about the forum rules. And that wasn't an insult at all, just a theory which may or may not be proven at some point in the future. Anyway, this is not providing any value to the debate, so we'll just look at each other funny and carry on our own ways.

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by Higgsy » Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:56 pm

Cargo wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:48 am I guess if all you know is textbooks, then that's all you'll know. How can anything else exist or even be factual, if it's not taught in our Institutions and prescribed by our papers.

Granted that the words we use play a role in what we think. Unfortunately Higgs, I think you've taken the book, and just are slamming on the table and in peoples faces. Not really interested in what they are thinking or saying. Perhaps you've suffered from some abuse in the past.
It seems that the forum rule against personal insult only seems to work in one direction.

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by Cargo » Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:48 am

I guess if all you know is textbooks, then that's all you'll know. How can anything else exist or even be factual, if it's not taught in our Institutions and prescribed by our papers.

Granted that the words we use play a role in what we think. Unfortunately Higgs, I think you've taken the book, and just are slamming on the table and in peoples faces. Not really interested in what they are thinking or saying. Perhaps you've suffered from some abuse in the past.

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by Higgsy » Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:28 am

EtherQuestions wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:12 pm Isn't it rather silly that most relativists are only capable of ad-hominem/personal attacks and not any reasonable logical discussion whatsoever when answering criticisms of a logical fallacy? This isn't a productive way to discuss anything.
See above, mate. He really doesn't understand what he's talking about.

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by Higgsy » Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:24 am

Zyxzevn wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:42 pm
Higgsy wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:47 pm
Zyxzevn wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:10 am I have some more discussion on the Quantum Mechanics here:

Null-Hypothesis - Quantum mechanics shows that there are no photons (on saidit.net)


Additional phenomenon that is interesting in the wave versus particle idea:
The Evanescent field
When you have light diffraction at an extreme angle, you get a Evanescent field.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
In the Evanescent Field the light disappears exponentially.
This is not really possible with photons, as photons would need to disappear into nothingness.
This is not what photons are supposed to do.
Isn’t it astonishing that someone who doesn’t know the difference between refraction and diffraction can claim to have “proved” that photons don’t exist?

Isn’t it amusing that someone who doesn’t “do” QM can say that QM shows that photons don’t exist? (The amplitude of the wave function is non-zero on both sides of the boundary.)

Isn’t rather silly that someone for whom QM is a closed book can lecture us on what photons are “supposed to do”?
Wow another frack ad hominem
How is it possible that an intelligent person does not know logical fallacies?
Hang on. It's a simple fact, demonstrated without doubt in your post above, that you don't know the difference between diffraction and refraction. You are talking about evanescent waves and frustrated TIR, as demonstrated in the diagrams you lifted from Wikipedia, and that is a refractive effect. Since, this is an extremely elementary difference, your not understanding it makes your claim to have "proven" that photons don't exist grandiose and rather silly.

It's a simple fact that QM is perfectly consistent with the evanescent wave, with tunnelling and with FIR, so your claiming that QM shows that photons don't exist also demonstrates that you don't do QM.

It's a simple fact that you are trying to lecture us on what photons "are supposed to do", but you are not capable of solving a simple QM problem involving the evolution of the wavefunction.
The light disappears with exp(-R) instead of 1/R^2
And you see, this just reinforces my point, as the inverse square law pertains to a point source, but in illustrations of the evanescent field, including the one you used, the wave is propagating as a plane wave with constant intensity.
One may argue that this is caused by diffraction spread over nearly infinite points.
Nah. Diffraction is irrelevant. We are talking about refraction at the boundary.
My argument about this field is that the photons just disappear, while they should
exist at in between points. I agree that this is a common problem in QM.
But in this case it is really visible.
With Electromagnetic fields this is just a lot simpler.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but it illustrates my point that you don't do QM. If you did, you'd know that this effect is perfectly modelled in QM by a non zero value for the wavefunction beyond the boundary, so that the square of the wave function is exactly of the e^-r form at the dielectric. Solutions to the Schroedinger equation yield the d'Alembert solution as expected if a transparent dielectric medium is placed within the range of the tunnelling. There is no conflict bewteen QM solutions of classical optical phenomena and solutions to the Maxwell equations. If there were, QM would have been thrown out at the outset. The fact that you don't understand this is why I say that you don't do QM.
Feynmann did the same thing in his infinite virtual particle theories.;
He invented very complex mathematics but he did
even see that it were simply electromagnetic waves.
It's Feynman not Feynmann, and you can see what he couldn't in quantum electrodynamics? Riiiight!
So the NULL hypothesis that these photons are just virtual imaginations
is still very valid. A simpler NULL hypothesis, means scientifically that it
is a better theory than QM.
But you have to read the full discussion to understand the arguments.
I read it. It's nonsense based on a complete misunderstanding of physics.

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by EtherQuestions » Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:12 pm

Higgsy wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:47 pm Isn’t it astonishing that someone who doesn’t know the difference between refraction and diffraction can claim to have “proved” that photons don’t exist?

Isn’t it amusing that someone who doesn’t “do” QM can say that QM shows that photons don’t exist? (The amplitude of the wave function is non-zero on both sides of the boundary.)

Isn’t rather silly that someone for whom QM is a closed book can lecture us on what photons are “supposed to do”?

Isn't it rather silly that most relativists are only capable of ad-hominem/personal attacks and not any reasonable logical discussion whatsoever when answering criticisms of a logical fallacy? This isn't a productive way to discuss anything.

To the relativists that aren't like this, we need more of you and not this guy and LaSuisse1 (probably the same guy) who contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by Zyxzevn » Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:42 pm

Higgsy wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:47 pm
Zyxzevn wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:10 am I have some more discussion on the Quantum Mechanics here:

Null-Hypothesis - Quantum mechanics shows that there are no photons (on saidit.net)


Additional phenomenon that is interesting in the wave versus particle idea:
The Evanescent field
When you have light diffraction at an extreme angle, you get a Evanescent field.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
In the Evanescent Field the light disappears exponentially.
This is not really possible with photons, as photons would need to disappear into nothingness.
This is not what photons are supposed to do.
Isn’t it astonishing that someone who doesn’t know the difference between refraction and diffraction can claim to have “proved” that photons don’t exist?

Isn’t it amusing that someone who doesn’t “do” QM can say that QM shows that photons don’t exist? (The amplitude of the wave function is non-zero on both sides of the boundary.)

Isn’t rather silly that someone for whom QM is a closed book can lecture us on what photons are “supposed to do”?
Wow another frack ad hominem
How is it possible that an intelligent person does not know logical fallacies?

The light disappears with exp(-R) instead of 1/R^2

One may argue that this is caused by diffraction spread over nearly infinite points.
But that does not change any of the other arguments.
My argument about this field is that the photons just disappear, while they should
exist at in between points. I agree that this is a common problem in QM.
But in this case it is really visible.
With Electromagnetic fields this is just a lot simpler.

Feynmann did the same thing in his infinite virtual particle theories.;
He invented very complex mathematics but he did
even see that it were simply electromagnetic waves.

So the NULL hypothesis that these photons are just virtual imaginations
is still very valid. A simpler NULL hypothesis, means scientifically that it
is a better theory than QM.
But you have to read the full discussion to understand the arguments.

Addition:
In this paper:
Single-photon emission from single-electron transport in a SAW-driven lateral light-emitting diode
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14560-1
They create "single photons" by using electromagnetic transmission.
First it seems as if there are really single photons.
But they need several waves to create it. Then looking deeper into it,
the single photon conclusion is derived from the observation that there is a pulse
independent of the EM-waves.
Funny, this is exactly the prediction with the Null hypothesis (Threshold).
With more research like this, we may find better how this works,
and how big the threshold is in each material and structure.

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by Higgsy » Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:47 pm

Zyxzevn wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:10 am I have some more discussion on the Quantum Mechanics here:

Null-Hypothesis - Quantum mechanics shows that there are no photons (on saidit.net)


Additional phenomenon that is interesting in the wave versus particle idea:
The Evanescent field
When you have light diffraction at an extreme angle, you get a Evanescent field.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
In the Evanescent Field the light disappears exponentially.
This is not really possible with photons, as photons would need to disappear into nothingness.
This is not what photons are supposed to do.
Isn’t it astonishing that someone who doesn’t know the difference between refraction and diffraction can claim to have “proved” that photons don’t exist?

Isn’t it amusing that someone who doesn’t “do” QM can say that QM shows that photons don’t exist? (The amplitude of the wave function is non-zero on both sides of the boundary.)

Isn’t rather silly that someone for whom QM is a closed book can lecture us on what photons are “supposed to do”?

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by Zyxzevn » Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:10 am

I have some more discussion on the Quantum Mechanics here:

Null-Hypothesis - Quantum mechanics shows that there are no photons (on saidit.net)


Additional phenomenon that is interesting in the wave versus particle idea:
The Evanescent field
When you have light diffraction at an extreme angle, you get a Evanescent field.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
In the Evanescent Field the light disappears exponentially.
This is not really possible with photons, as photons would need to disappear into nothingness.
This is not what photons are supposed to do.

This Evanescent field is a bit similar to the skin effect of high frequency electric currents.

Image with normal diffraction and Evanescent diffraction:
Image

Re: The Great Ether Debate

by EtherQuestions » Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:38 am

Zyxzevn wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:05 pm
My theory based on threshold model:

Matter is connected to a force-field, like some kind of bubble, vortex or ring.
Resonating with itself, and probably spinning.
Even the simplest possible form, the ring has a width/depth to it. And this can collect
a certain amount of energy before it can go to a different state.

In an atom this ring would be like in some kind of loop around the nucleus.
And since electrons like to be in pairs, this loop may even contain 2 electrons.
Loops can also connect atoms together as molecules.
In this case these loops always contain 2 electrons.
These loops are more stretched out, like rubber bands.

Small correction:
In observations we see more sphere like structures.
(Check pictures of atomic force microscopes).
So if this a correct interpretation, we have bubbles instead of rings.
So the basic structure which electric charge is stored is a bubble around the nucleus.
A sphere shaped bubble that in some way rotates and resonates with itself.
(Not the weird things that some scientists came up with.)

On longer distances these loops (bubbles) will be stretched out, and appear as particles.
In superconductivity we see can observe loops of electrons, inside the material,
that can maintain currents without any resistance (zero Ohm).
These loops are large enough to be picked up with a microscope.
In higher temperatures the loops may break due to heat, stopping superconductivity.

So depending on the temperature the loops and connections can be longer.
So cold matter becomes solid, because the electrons connect all atoms together.
This can be confirmed with its electrical properties.
Moderate matter becomes fluid, where electrons connect groups of molecules together.
Hot matter becomes gas. Electrons are only able to connect the atoms in the molecules.
This all can be confirmed with the observation of the spectral bands.


This all does not tell if there is some kind of aether.
But it shows that particles are not what they seem.

Another great post by Zyxzevn. I wish we could upvote on here.


"This all does not tell if there is some kind of aether.
But it shows that particles are not what they seem"


Maybe it can tell if there is an aether or support an aether model, a Nikola Tesla aether quote comes to mind:

"When the Ether gets cold enough, its properties change causing strange phenomena to both atoms and light. Using very cold temperatures is a way to isolate what the Ether affects; cold temperatures are to Ether physics what particle accelerators are to particle physics." - Tesla

Top